[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Nmh-workers] rebuilding a borked MIME multipart/ structure?

2015-04-21 20:58:47

Robert Elz <kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU> wrote:
    > Date:        Tue, 21 Apr 2015 19:49:25 -0400
    > From:        Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu>
    > Message-ID:  

    > | Which of course in any standard-compliant MUA will almost certainly do
    > | one of the first two and never bother looking at the third one.

    > Without knowing what the parts contain, I can't say whether the format is
    > appropriate or not, but your interpretation of what should happen is
    > incorrect - a standards compliant MUA that understands text/calendar 
    > process that part (the last understood alternative is the one that is
    > supposed to be preferred) - if text/calendar is not understood, then 
    > it be a multipart/related isn't going to solve anything (putting 
    > before text/plain is certainly an unusual ordering however.)

Not sure where this thread started; maybe with trying to deal with Outlook
and webex's abomination of text/calendar... (often sending it as
application/octet-stream, even...)... but my sad experience is often that
because the MUA *thinks* it understands text/calendar, it tries to render it,
only it's a broken text/calendar, so the end user gets crap all.
If the MUA didn't understand text/calendar, then it might have rendered
the text/html (except that Outlook doesn't bother, and thinks you can put
HTML into the text/calendar's description field, which I'm sure is wrong,
because there is no mime type on that part).

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     mcr(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on 
rails    [ 

Nmh-workers mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>